THE 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION 


OF  THE 


TETRAGRAMMATON 


SUBMITTED     IN     PARTIAL     FULFILMENT    OF    THE     REQUIREMENTS     FOR     THE 

DEGREE    OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF 

PHILOSOPHY,    NEW    YORK    UNIVERSITY,    1 899 


BY 

HANS    H.   SPOER 


PRINTED    BY 

^be  inniverditis  o(  Cbicago  press 

CHICAGO 


THE 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION 


OF  THE 


TETRAGRAMMATON 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF 

PHILOSOPHY,  NEW  YORK  UNIVERSITY,  1 899 


HANS    H.   SPOER 


PRINTED    BY 

Zbe  TUnlversitg  of  Cblcago  ipress 

CHICAGO 


/Va^^ 


PREFACE. 


The  problem  which  the  question  after  the  origin  and  inter- 
pretation of  the  Tetragrammaton  offers  to  the  historical  student 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  one  of  the  most  fascinating  ones  of  the 
many  which  the  Jewish  Scriptures  present.  Unfortunately  the 
material  from  which  to  work  is  not  very  large.  As  the  sources 
outside  of  the  Old  Testament  are  of  a  rather  doubtful  value,  we 
are  eompelled  to  base  our  investigations  mainly  upon  the  few 
statements  contained  in  the  Jewish  writings  and  the  study  of  the 
historical  development  of  (1)  the  political  status  of  the  Hebrews, 
and  (2)  the  religious  belief  of  the  Hebrews. 

I  count  myself  happy  that  my  teacher,  Professor  Prince,  has 
permitted  me  to  choose  this  subject  for  my  dissertation.  My  most 
hearty  thanks  are  due  to  him  for  the  kind  interest  which  he  has 
always  taken  in  my  work  and  for  his  suggestive  instruction. 

I  also  gratefully  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  to  my  teacher, 
Professor  F.  Brown.  To  his  inspiring  teaching  I  owe  my  love 
for  the  historical  study  of  the  Old  Testament.  His  kind  interest 
has  never  been  wanting,  and  to  him  I  owe  many  valuable  sug- 
gestions. 

My  thanks  are  also  due  to  my  teacher,  Professor  Osborn,  for 
his  teaching  and  the  kind  interest  he  has  taken  in  my  work. 

This  dissertion  was  completed  in  the  summer  of  1899.  Cir- 
cumstances prevented  me  from  referring  to  the  latest  literature 
on  the  subject. 

Hans  H.  Spoee. 

New  York,  October,  1901. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE 
TETRAGRAMMATON. 


The  most  primitive  name  of  God  found  in  the  Old  Testament 
is  b^Ti .  The  root  of  the  word  is  doubtful.  The  question  of  the 
etymology  is  very  intricate  and  the  conclusions  are  dubious. 
Some  derive  the  word  from  the  stem  b^J}^  ;'  others  derive  it  from 

the  stem  TOU^ ,  with  reference  to  aJf ,  though  the  meaning  they 

give  to  this  root  varies.  This  name  is  very  rarely  used  in  prose. 
According  to  E  bsj^  was  the  God  of  the  patriarch  Jacob,  whose 
center  of  worship  was  Bethel,  Gen.  31:13;  35:1-3.  In  early 
poetry  b5<  seems  to  have  become  a  proper  name.  It  is  used 
217  times. 

The  divine  name  C^SlbS  is  a  jjluralis  majestaticus.  It  is 
characteristic  of  Ephraimitic  writers.  J  uses  it  chiefly  in  poetry, 
e.  g.,  Gen.  3:16,  3,  5;  9:27;  39:9;  44:16;  Deut.  32:17,  39. 
P  employs  it  in  Genesis  78  times.  DTlbiS  is  used  to  signify  the 
God  of  Israel  2,400  times ;  it  designates  rulers  170  times,  e.  g., 
Exod.  21:6;'"  "angels,"  D^nbx  (H  ^Dn  Job  1:6,  "divine  beings") 
Gen.  1:27;  "gods,"  e.  g.,  Exod.  18:11.  The  question  arises 
now,  Is  Elohim  connected  with  El  ?  The  probability  that  D^Ilbi^ 
is  a  plural  of  b&<  is  very  strong.  There  exists  in  biblical  Aramaic^ 
a  number  of  words  with  two  consonants  which  insert  a  iH  in  form- 
ing the  plural  form,  e.g.,  2i^  "father,"  plur.  I^PQIS* ;  DTT  "name," 

plur.  "pn^Jir  ;  also  Syriac  :'  ]!,]  "father,"  plur.  )z^|  ;  )^]  "mother," 

plur.  |^(^]  ;  ]Lso|  "female  servant,"  plur.  jzoiio] .     We  have  also  a 

Hebrew  word  which  forms  the  plural  in  this  manner :  H^^U^ 
"female  servant,"  plural  form  tTin^Jl^  . 

iGesenins,  Thesaurus;  F.  Hitzig,  Zeitschrift  filr  wiss.  Theol.,  Vol.  XVIII;  T.  NOldeke, 
ilfB^Tr.,1880,  p.  774. 

la  Against  this  interpretation  see  ZAW.,  Vol.  XI,  pp.  181  sg. 

2  Cf.  Marti,  Grammat.  d.  bibl.  Aram.,  §  76. 

3  Cf.  Brockelmann,  Syrische  Grammatik,  %  118. 

5 


O  OFJG:i:K  ANT?  INTEEPEETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON 

In  this  way  we  may  also  account  for  the  H  in  DTibi^ . 
The  6  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  primitive  Semitic  d  has  per- 
petuated itself  only  in  rare  instances,  having  usually  changed  into 
^/  Noldeke  thinks  that  there  may  be  a  possible  connection 
between  bi<  and  DTibsj^ . 

Another  name  given  to  God  is  ffbi^ .  This  name  occurs  52 
times  in  the  Old  Testament.  Of  these  it  is  found  42  times  in  the 
book  of  Job.  In  pre-exilic  times  this  name  is  employed  only 
twice,  Deut.  32:15,  17,  provided  this  poem  is  not  post-exilic. 
In  fact,  such  words  as  'T'iS! ,  rilD^Sriri ,  and  ^B3 ,  which  are  of  a 
very  late  origin,  would  forbid  us  to  regard  Deut.,  chap.  32,  as 
being  pre-exilic.  CornilP  says:  "We  scarcely  dare  take  an 
earlier  date  for  the  poem  than  the  end  of  the  Babylonian  exile,  if 
we  have  not  to  assign  it  to  a  much  later  date."  Ps.  18,  in  which 
this  name  occurs,  I  believe  belongs  to  a  period  not  prior  to  that 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  perhaps  to  a  very  late  period.  Duhm,  in 
loco,  regards  the  psalm  as  "sehr  jung,"  and  assigns  it  to  the  second 
century,  to  the  times  of  the  Hasmoneans.  It  is  remarkable,  how- 
ever, that  Wbs  is  employed  only  once  in  the  whole  psalm,  while 
in  all  the  other  cases  the  ordinary  term  for  God  is  used.  In 
the  parallel  passage,  2  Sam.  22:32,  we  have  bu^  ;  it  leaves,  there- 
fore, no  doubt  that  ffbjJ^  is  an  insertion  by  a  later  editor.  The 
other  passages  where  the  word  Wbu^  occurs  as  a  designation  of 
the  God  of  Israel  are  Pss.  50:22;  114:7;  139:19;  Prov.  30:5; 
Isa.  44:8;  Hab.  3:3;  Neh.  9:17.  None  of  these  passages  is 
pre-exilic.  Hab.,  chap.  3,  does  not  belong  to  the  genuine 
prophecy,  but  is  a  much  later  addition.  This  shows  that  ffbi< 
has  not  been  used  in  the  Old  Testament  previous  to  the  times  of 
the  exile  nor  during  the  exile.  Therefore,  if  J^'bbi  is  the  singular 
form  of  D^nb^ ,  the  very  curious  fact  presents  itself  to  us  that 
the  plural  form  has  been  in  use  centuries  before  even  anyone 
thought  of  iTsing  the  singular  form.  It  is  much  easier,  however, 
to  account  for  the  form  nbi<  as  being  an  artificial  poetic  singular 
obtained  by  inference  from  Elohim.  Plbu^  is  used  a  number  of 
times,  not  of  the  God  of  Israel,  but  of  a  heathen  deity,  e.  g., 
2  Chron.  32:15;  Dan.  11:37-39;  Hab.  1:11;  2  Kings  17:81, 
Kethib;  Job  12:6.  Hab.  1:11  does  not  belong  to  the  genuine 
prophecy  ;  vss.  5-11  were  inserted  by  a  later  hand.  Hence  all  the 
passages  in  which  nb!!<  occurs  are  late. 

♦  Cf.  Stade,  Hebraische  Oram.,  §  77a.  5  Einleitung,  4th  ed.,  1896,  p.  64. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTEEPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGEAMMATON  7 

The  name  "'31!^  ,  signifying  "my  Lord,"  was  a  divine  name  in 
Judah  at  an  early  period.  When  it  referred  to  God  it  was  always 
written  with  a  Qamets  in  the  final  syllable,  but  with  Pathach 
when  it  had  reference  to  man.  The  word  is  an  intensive  plural 
denoting  excellency,  as  is  also  DTlblJ^.  It  occurs  485  times  in 
the  Old  Testament.  In  later  times  copyists  substituted  this 
name  for  tTlTT' . 

T\^^'2'2 ,  used  with  ^l^'^'' ,  another  name  for  God,  seems  to 
have  originated  from  the  conception  of  ni»T'  as  the  God  of  the 
covenant  of  David.  As  nii^QiS  he  is  the  god  of  the  battle  array 
of  Israel.  Some,  however,  refer  it  to  the  heavenly  hosts  and 
hosts  of  Israel.  But  the  conception  that  he  is  the  God  of  the 
heavenly  hosts  is  a  much  later  conception.  The  name  signifies 
"God  of  hosts,"  God  being  implied.  Altogether  it  occurs  285 
times. 

By  these  few  which  I  have  chosen  from  the  many  names  given 
to  the  Israelitish  deity  in  the  Old  Testament,  we  see  that  each 
one  signifies  something  definite.  As  bi<  he  is  either  the  Strong 
One  or  "the  one  whom  men  strive  to  reach,"  "das  Ziel  aller 
Menschen  Sehnsucht  und  alles  Menschenstrebens."®  As  C^Ilbs^ 
he  is  the  true  God  Kar'  e|o%^J^-  As  inl^H^  he  stands  in  a  definite 
relationship  to  David  and  Israel.  This  leads  us  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  different  names  given  to  God  were  not  mere  designations 
by  which  the  Israelite  could  address  his  deity,  but,  as  was  also  the 
case  among  all  primitive  peoples,  the  name  either  expressed  a 
characteristic  of  the  person  or  god  to  whom  it  was  given,  or  it 
expressed  a  certain  relationship  between  the  person  or  the  god 
thus  named  and  the  people. 

The  most  important  name  given  to  the  Israelitish  deity  in  the 
Old  Testament  is  the  one  expressed  by  the  tetragrammaton  niH''. 
Whence  does  it  come  and  what  does  it  mean  ? 

The  name  Yahweh  is  explained  by  some^  as  being  con- 
nected etymologically  with  the  Indo-Aryan  "  Jovis."  It  is,  then, 
derived  from  6tv  "to  shine,"  hence  Yahweh  would  signify  the 
"bright  ether."  This  name  is  also  declared  to  be  ideally,  though 
not  etymologically,  related  to  "daeva,"  "deus."     Thus  the  name 

6  Lagardo,  Orientalia,  Vol.  II,  p.  3;  GOtt.  Nachrichten,  1882,  p.  173. 

7  Von  Bohlen,  Genesis,  p.  ciii ;  Vatke,  Die  bibl.  Theol.  wissenschaftl.  dargest.,  p.  672 ;  J.  G. 
MuUer,  Die  Seniiten  in  ihrem  Verhdltnisse  z.  d.  Chaniiten  und  Japhethiten,  1872,  p.  163; 
Schlottmann,  Buch  Hiob,  c.  12,  8  sq.  [For  a  recent  statement  of  this  view,  with  some  new 
features  of  special  interest,  see  Thomas  Tyler,  "  The  Origin  of  the  Tetragrammaton,"  Jetvish 
Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  XIII,  pp.  581-94. — Editors.] 


8  OEIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON 

would  signify  the  "High  One,"  the  "Heavenly."*  But  there  is 
so  little  common  to  both  languages  of  which  we  can  speak  with 
any  degree  of  certainty  that  we  cannot  think  of  deriving  nilTT' 
from  the  Indo-Aryan  stem  Biv.  The  untenableness  of  this  deriva- 
tion was  already  recognized  by  F.  Tuch,^  who  says:  "The  simi- 
larity of  mn"'  with  Jovis,  Jupiter,  which  is  insufficient  enough 
in  itself,  disappears  entirely  when  the  name  is  pronounced  rightly 
niri^  =  Jahve." 

Hitzig^"  derives  the  name  from  the  same  idea  as  that  seen 
in  the  Armenian  "Astuads"  =  the  one  who  is.  He  does  not, 
however,  derive  the  name  from  that  word.  The  relationship  of 
this  name  to  "Astuads"  is  an  ideal  one,  and  not  an  etymological 
or  linguistic  one.  Moses,  he  claims,  formed  after  this  one 
("Astuads")  his  new  divine  name,  but  only  because  his  spirit 
was  prepared  to  conceive  the  idea.  Thinking  over  the  mean- 
ing contained  in  "Astuads,"  he  recognized  its  truth  and  depth." 
But  Hitzig  does  not  state  by  what  means  Moses  came  to  know 
the  Armenian  "Astuads."  The  improbability  of  such  a  connec- 
tion or  derivation  of  "  Yahweh"  from  "Astuads"  is  plain,  because 
no  traces  of  the  knowledge  of  that  name  which  would  warrant 
such  a  theory  are  found  in  Egypt. 

Egypt,  more  than  any  other  country,  has  been  considered  the 
land  in  which  the  name  Yahweh  originated.  Lieblein  advanced 
the  theory  that  Moses  was  a  disciple  of  the  priests  of  On-Heli- 
opolis.  These  priests  taught  in  esoteric  doctrine  the  monotheistic 
conception  of  God.  This  conception  they  expressed  in  the  name 
of  that  deity  Chepara,  i.  e.,  the  One  who  is.  Moses  accepted  this 
name  for  his  deity  and  also  the  idea  which  this  name  conveyed, 
and  expressed  it  in  the  tetragrammaton  nUl"^  =  the  One  who  is. 
Again  Yahweh  has  been  identified  with  the  Egyptian  moon-god. 
Roth'^  says  in  a  very  positive  way:  "That  the  Egyptian  pictures 
of  gods  appear  as  oracle-pictures  of  the  Hebrew  high-priest  will 
not  seem  strange  to  the  one  who  considers  more  carefully  that 
the  whole  Hebrew  cult  is  of  Egyptian  origin,  and  that  one  of  the 
two  deities  of  light  I02  became  the  Hebrew  national  god  Tl'' , 
nin^  ,  Ia&)."     We  cannot  pronounce  with  any  degree  of  certainty 

8  Cf.  Ewald,  6  VI.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  203  sgg. 

"  Genesis  erklart,  1838,  2te  Auflage,  1871,  p.  xxvii. 
10  Geschichte  d.  V.  Is.,  I,  p.  81. 

"  Cf.  Vorlesungen  ilber  bibl.  Theol.,  herausgeg.  von  J.  J.  Kneuken,  1880,  p.  38. 
''•i  Geschichte  unserer  abendl.  Philos.,  1,  p.  175,  note. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON  9 

what  the  Urim  and  Thummim  were,  though  it  is  generally  sup- 
posed that  they  were  stones  with  which  lots  were  cast,  and  not 
pictures. ^^  That  the  whole  Israelitish  cult  is  of  Egyptian  origin 
is  an  assumption  which  no  one  now  accepts.  Even  the  worship 
of  the  golden  calf,  which  has  been  identified  by  some  with  Apis 
or  Mnemis,  cannot  be  proved  to  be  such  ;  for  the  worship  of  bulls 
as  symbols  of  divine  power  is  met  with  in  all  ancient  religions, 
and  is  by  no  means  peculiar  to  Egypt.  The  Egyptian  phrase, 
"Nuk  pu  nuk,"  is  considered  by  some'*  as  being  the  original 
from  which  the  thought  expressed  in  the  name  Yahweh  has  been 
derived.  This  derivation  rests  upon  a  misconception  of  the 
Egyptian  phrase,  which  is  an  everyday  expression  and  does  not 
contain  any  mysterious  doctrine.'^  The  statement  made  by 
Diodorus  Siculus,  I,  94,  that  the  name  Jao  was  found  upon  the 
breastplate  of  the  Egyptian  priests  is  without  any  historic  proof, 
hence  worthless.  I  agree  with  Kuenen,'^  at  least  in  so  far  as  the 
non-Egyptian  origin  of  Yahwism  is  concerned,  when  he  says  that 
the  documents  upon  which  are  based  the  theories  of  the  Egyp- 
tologists "favor  the  idea  that  Yahwism  was  roused  from  its  slum- 
ber by  the  Egyptian  religion,  and  was  made  conscious  of  its  own 
characteristics  by  its  conflicts  with  it,  rather  than  that  it  sprang 
out  of  a  faith  from  which  it  is  seen  to  he  radically  different." 

Even  the  casual  reader  of  the  story  of  the  exodus  will  notice 
at  once  that  what  the  writer  wants  to  present  is  the  struggle 
between  the  God  of  Israel  and  the  gods  of  Egypt.  The  later 
prophets"  dwell  with  predilection  upon  the  fact  that  Yahweh 
had  delivered  the  Israelites  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt.  It  is 
therefore  hardly  credible  that  Moses  should  have  chosen  out  of 
the  Egyptian  pantheon  a  name  for  his  god,  or  the  god  himself. 
The  fact  that  the  exodus  was  the  result  of  the  superiority  of  the 
new  god  over  the  Egyptian  gods  would  also  forbid  our  seeking 
for  the  origin  of  this  the  most  sacred  name  of  the  Israelitish 
deity  in  the  esoteric  teaching  of  the  priests.  In  view  of  the 
existing  antagonism  between  Yahweh  and  the  Egyptian  gods,  it 
seems  to  me  doubtful  whether  the  Israelites  borrowed  anything 
from  their  cult  or  teaching. 

13  Cf.  Muss-Arnolt,  "Urim  and  Thummim,"  AJSL.,  1900. 

1*  Wahrmund,  Babylonierthum,  Isr,  und  Christenthum,  1882,  p.  119. 

13  Cf.  Le  Page  Renouf . 

^^Hibbert  Lectures,  1882,  pp.  64  sg. 

i7£.£r.,Hos.  12:10;  13:4;  Amos  2:10;  3:1. 


10         ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON 

There  are  two  other  theories.  The  first  one  I  shall  only  men- 
tion ;  it  is  the  identification  of  Yahweh  with  the  Indian  god 
Agnis.'*  The  second  one  is  that  by  A.  K6musant,  "M^moire 
sur  Lao-tseu."  He  identifies  the  three  signs  I  H  W,  which  he 
says  express  the  name  of  the  god  of  Laotse,  with  'law.  The 
three  signs  he  pronounces  Ii-hl-wei,  and  this  word  he  declares 
to  be  of  foreign  origin.  That  the  tetragrammaton  has  been 
reduced  to  a  trigrammaton  he  declares  to  be  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  last  Jl  of  niH"'  was  not  heard.  Victor  von  Strauss-Torney  ^' 
seems  to  favor  the  idea  that  there  was  at  least  some  connection 
between  Israel  and  China.  He  adduces  for  proof  Isa.  40:4,  which 
is  found  according  to  him  almost  literally  in  chap.  22  of  The 
Sayings  of  the  Ancients,  and  also  Isa,  49:12,  according  to  which 
China  was  known  to  the  Hebrews, 

That  this  verse  refers  to  the  Chinese  is  by  no  means  a  new 
theory.  As  early  as  the  sixteenth  century  we  find  that  Arias 
Montanus  interprets  this  verse  as  having  reference  to  the  Chinese. 
Granted  that  U^TD  'J"^^  refers  to  China,^"  all  it  would  prove  in 
this  case  is  that  Laotse  accepted  the  name  of  the  God  of  Israel 
for  his  deity.  But  doubtless  this  mysterious  name  refers  to 
some  other  land  than  China,  and  in  that  case  the  trigrammaton 
would  not  prove  very  much.  There  would  then  be  no  means  of 
showing  that  it  is  an  abbreviated  form  of  Hin^ .  The  latest 
commentators  have  given  up  this  theory  and  refer  I'^D  either  to 
Pelusium  (c/.  Ezek.  30:15  sq.)  or  the  desert  TD  .  Others,  again, 
have  thought  of  the  Egyptian  city  JlDlD  which  is  mentioned  in 
Ezek.  29:10;  30:6.  In  that  case  we  have  to  change  the  name 
to  D''D10 .  It  is  almost  certain  that  the  name  Tschin,  or  Tsin,  for 
China  is  derived  from  the  Tsin  dynasty,  which  began  to  reign  in 
255  B,  C.  The  pronunciation  "j^D  for  Tschin  is  Greek  (Ptol.  7:3), 
while  the  Arabs  pronounced  it  i^vy^  =  l"'!! . 

The  LXX  translators  had  no  idea  that  this  verse  had  reference 
to  China ;  they  read  Hepcrwz/.  Duhm  in  his  commentary  refers 
D^'j'^D  to  the  Phoenician  Sinites,  mentioned  in  Gen.  10:17,  because 
Deutero-Isaiah  lived  among  them.  However,  he  calls  this  theory 
"eine  Hypothese  der  Verzweiflung,"     "Yet,"  he  says,  "it  seems 

18  J.  B.  F.  Obry,  Jehova  et  Agnis,  etc.,  Paris,  1870. 

19  ZA  W.,  1884,  pp.  31  sqq. ;  Delitzsch,  lesaia,  3d  ed. ;  excursus  by  v.  Strauss. 

20  So  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  pp.  948  sqq. ;  Lassen,  Ir.  Alter thumskunde ;  Cheyne  and 
Delitzsch  commentaries,  et  al.  For  the  whole  question  see  the  RWB.,  and  also  T.  de 
Lacouperie  in  Bahyl.  and  Orient.  Bee,  1, 1886, 1887, 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON         11 

as  if  also  in  41 :  27 ;  44 :  26  our  Unknown  were  speaking  of  himself 
in  the  same  veiled  manner."  China  is  out  of  the  question,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  "hypothesis  of  desperation"  is  not  such  a 
hopeless  one  after  all.  Besides,  the  passages  in  question  are 
considerably  younger  than  the  writings  of  Laotse,  who  was  born 
about  604  B.  C,  while  the  Great  Unknown  was  active  more  than 
sixty  years  later ;  hence  von  Strauss's  theory  is  not  supported  by 
those  passages. 

It  is  quite  natural  that  the  minds  of  scholars  should  have 
turned  to  Babylonia,  the  ancient  seat  of  culture,  to  find  a  solu- 
tion for  this  problem.  Two  reasons  especially  favor  the  theory 
that  Babylonia  is  the  land  where  the  name  niri''  originated. 
Unlike  Egypt,  there  is  no  conflict  recorded  between  Babylonia 
and  Israel,  i.  e.,  between  the  God  of  Israel  and  the  gods  of 
Babylonia,  at  least  not  at  so  early  a  date  as  that  recorded  of 
Egypt.  The  second  reason,  which  carries  with  it,  perhaps,  more 
weight  than  the  first  one,  is  the  similarity  of  the  languages, 
and  the  presence  in  the  Assyrian  language  of  a  syllable  which 
sounds  like  the  abbreviated  form  of  nin^ ,  namely.  Yah  or  Yahu. 
Besides  these  two  reasons  a  third  one  is  frequently  adduced  to 
prove  that  there  existed  at  one  time  a  close  connection  between 
the  Assyrians  and  the  Hebrews.  We  find  reference  to  this  in 
the  following  passages:  Gen.  11:28-30;  12:l-4rt;  15:7;  22:20 
sqq.j  chap.  24;  27:43;  28:10;  2^-Asqq.  These  are  all  J  pas- 
sages. Unquestionably  J  is  emphasizing  the  fact  that  Abraham 
and  his  relatives  resided  in  Mesopotamia.  Gen.  11:31  (P)  con- 
ceives of  Ur  Kasdim  and  Haran  as  two  distinct  places.  In  Gen.  "* 
12:46,  5  (P)  Haran  is  made  the  point  of  departure  for  Canaan, 
According  to  Gen.  11:31  Terah  and  his  family  start  from  Ur 
Kasdim.  The  existence  of  the  name  Ur  Kasdim  in  both  J  and  P 
admits  of  only  one  explanation,  viz.:  "the  presen(^''of  it  among 
the  historical  materials  on  which  these  narrati"s^s  are  based." 
Ur  Kasdim  has  been  identified  with  Uru  Mukayyar.  Though  J 
and  P  do  not  agree  in  all  instances,  yet  what  they  agree  in  seems 
to  be  strongly  in  favor  of  the  theory  of  an  early  Babylonian  home 
for  the  Hebrews.^' 

The  supposed  proof  for  a  Babylonian  derivation  is  found  in 
the  great  Khorsabad  inscription  of  Sargon.      On  this  inscription 

21  Cf.  Professor  Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  "  Ur  Kasdim,"  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature  and 
Exegesis,  December,  1887. 


12         ORIGIN  AND  INTEKPRETATION  OF  THE  TETEAGRAMMATON 

a  King  Ja-u-bi-di  =  Jahubid  is  mentioned.  This  word  is  pre- 
ceded by  a  determinative  for  a  person  and  one  for  a  deity. 
Schrader^^  concludes  from  this  that  Ja-u  or  Jahu  was  held,  at 
least  by  the  writer,  to  be  the  name  of  a  deity.  In  the  cylinder 
inscription  of  Khorsabad  the  name  of  the  same  king  is  given  as 
I-lu-u-bi-di,  i.  e.,  Ilubi'di.  Ilu  =  god  is  there  substituted 
for  Jahu,  which  therefore  can  be  only  a  divine  name.  Such 
changes  occur  very  frequently  in  Hebrew.  Jahu  suggests  the 
Hebrew  ^IT' ,  ?'.  e.,  "111''.  From  the  occurrence  of  Jaubi'di 
and  Ilubidi  Tiele^^  concludes  that  Jau  must  have  been  with 
the  Assyrians  synonymous  with  II u.  However,  when  speaking 
of  the  Assyrians  in  such  connections  as  the  above,  it  seems  to  me 
necessary  to  exclude  the  non-educated  classes  and  include  only 
the  educated  people,  and  in  particular  the  scribes.  It  had  become 
the  custom  of  the  Assyrian  kings  to  extend  their  conquests  to  the 
west,  e.  g.,  Shalmanassar  II.,  Tiglath-Pileser  III.,  but  especially 
Sargon.  It  is  doubtless  due  to  this  fact  that  the  scribes  came  to 
know  these  two  names,  Jau  and  II u,  which  were  given  to  the 
same  deity.  For  how  else  could  we  account  for  the  occurrence 
of  the  name  of  the  Hamatesian  king  in  two  different  forms  in 
Assyrian  inscriptions  ?  But,  after  all,  Jahu  has  not  yet  been 
proved  to  be  the  name  of  an  Assyrian  deity,  inasmuch  as  the 
name  of  the  Hamatite  king  can  certainly  not  be  considered  as 
conclusive  so  far  as  Assyria  is  concerned.  Fried.  Delitzsch^* 
declares  Ja-u  to  be  a  declined  form  of  ^ ,  and  therefore  the  sup- 
posed Yahweh  is  nothing  more  than  a  '' .  The  same  scholar^* 
declares  that  the  tetragrammaton  should  not  be  derived  from 
nin ,  but  that  we  should  seek  it  from  the  original  forms  ^n^,  tT*, 
■^ .  He  says  that  ^!T'  is  not  of  Hebrew  origin,  though  he  con- 
cedes that  nin*'  at  least  is  of  Hebrew  coinage  ;  the  original  word, 
however,  is  of  Babylonian  origin.  According  to  this  theory  the 
form  commonly  used  by  the  Israelites  was  not  the  longer  form 
Yahweh,  but  Yahu  or  Yah.  Delitzsch's  theory  is  supported  also 
by  Hommel,''*^  who  states  that  the  oldest  form  of  '^^T^''  is  Ya,  la, 
Yau,  and  that  this  name  was  identical  with  the  Babylonian  divine 
name  Ea.     This  ancient  Semitic  divine  name  Ya  was,  according  to 

22  Cf.KAT.2,  pp.23  sq. 

23  Babyl.  Assyr.  Geschichte,  1886,  p.  259. 
2*  Assyrische  Lesestiicke,  1876,  p.  18. 

25  Wo  lag  das  Paradies?  1881,  pp.  158 sgg. 

26  Expository  Times,  1898,  p.  144. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON         13 

that  theory,  transformed  at  the  time  of  Moses  into  Yahweh,  and 
this  gave  it  a  new  meaning."'  Professor  HommeP**  identifies  also 
the  two  Assyrian  deities  Ea  and  Sin  with  one  another,  and 
shows  this  by  the  so-called  parallelismus  membrorum  of  the  fol- 
lowing passage  taken  from  the  "Journey  of  Ishtar  to  Hades": 

Then  went  forth  Shamash,  before  his  father  wept  he ; 
Before  Ea,  the  king,  came  his  tears. 

Upon  this  he  builds  the  theory  that  Ea  =  Aa,  who  again  was  in 
primitive  times  identified  with  Sin,  and  is  the  same  as  Ya  = 
Yahweh.  The  form  Aa  or  Ya  merely  presents  a  somewhat 
modified  phonetic  transcript  of  the  name  borne  by  the  god  of 
Eridu.  Margoliouth,"^  who  also  identifies  Ea  with  Sin,  and  in 
turn  again  with  Yahweh,  says  that  the  Israelites  received  this 
name  from  Abraham,  who  came  from  Ur,  in  Chaldea,  the  primeval 
sanctuary  of  the  moon-god.  At  their  departure  from  Egypt,  the 
Israelites  of  the  exodus  were  first  led  to  Sinai,  the  ancient  sanc- 
tuary of  the  moon-god,  and  here  they  solemnly  adopted  him  as 
their  deity. 

These  are  the  most  important  theories  about  a  Babylonian 
origin  of  Yahweh. 

We  will  now  examine  these  theories  somewhat  more  closely. 
According  to  Fried.  Delitzsch  the  form  ordinarily  used  was  the 
shorter  form  M"'  and  not  the  longer  mri"'.  Against  this  is  the 
fact  that  n"*  occurs  only  in  poetry,  very  seldom  in  early  writings  ; 
cf.  Exod.  15:2,  "My  strength  and  (my)  song  is  Yah"  (17:16). 
In  Exod.  15:2  it  occurs  for  the  first  time.  However,  this 
chapter  has  been  worked  over  very  much,  and  even  if  we  hear 
Moses  speaking  in  vss.  16,  3,  to  speak  with  Ewald,^°  it  does  not 
prove  anything  for  the  originality  of  the  form  »!"' .  If  the  whole 
song  is  late,^'  and  Yah  occurs  only  in  post-exilic  poetical  pas- 
sages, it  proves  that  the  short  form  tl^  was  not  known  to  the 
people  in  pre-exilic  times.  In  Isa.  38:11  read  with  Duhm  Tl^TT 
instead  of  Tl''  rT' .  If  H"'  were  really  the  older  form,  it  is  rather 
surprising  that  in  colloquial  expressions  and  in  swearing  the 
longer  form   nin"'  should   have   been   employed   instead   of   the 

27  Expository  Times,  1898,  p.  48. 

28  Altisrael.  Ueberlieferung,  1897,  p.  64. 

29  "  Earliest  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,"  Contemporary  Review,  October,  1898. 

30  Dichter  des  A.  B.,  1, 1,  pp.  175-8;  so  also  Dillmann  and  Delitzsch  commentaries. 

31  Cf.  Cornill,  Einleitung,  1896,  p.  61. 


14         ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON 

more  convenient  shorter  form  Pl"^  .^^*  Besides,  the  mere  fact  that 
T\''  is  only  found  in  poetry  is  against  a  universal  use  of  this  word. 
Outside  of  this  use  it  is  found  only  in  compound  proper  names.^'*' 
That  H^  is  used  only  in  poetry  favors  the  theory  that  it  is  a 
poetically  shortened  form  of  TV^Ti'^ .  The  longer  form  nin"'  is 
found  on  the  Mesha  inscription,  1.  18.  The  form  W  seems  to 
have  come  into  use  only  gradually,  and  was  employed  very  little. 
It  is  an  apocopated  form  after  the  analogy  of  the  verbs  Ti'b . 
After  the  last  H  had  been  apocopated,  leaving  IM'' ,  the  final  1 
was  vocalized  and  then  dropped,  so  that  JT'  remained.  The  H 
received  then  a  mappiq  fT' .  The  artificial  origin  and  growth 
of  this  form  as  the  name  of  the  deity  seems  to  be  out  of 
question.^'" 

According  to  Philippi,^^  the  form  which  we  should  have 
expected  from  the  Babylonian  Yau,  in  accordance  with  the 
regular  phonetic  laws,  would  be  Y6.  Pointing  to  the  different 
usages  of  ^Jl"^  and  ilT^  in  compound  names,  he  asks  the  ques- 
tion :  "And  if  Yau  became  in  Hebrew  indiscriminately  ^H''  or 
in"' ,  how  is  it  that  the  latter  never  appears  at  the  end  of  a  com- 
pound proper  name,  the  former  never  at  the  beginning  ?"  We 
cannot  account  for  it  according  to  Delitzsch's  theory,  while  it  is 
easily  explained  according  to  the  view  advanced  above.  The 
abbreviated  form  ^Ti'^  from  n^Ti''  became  when  forming  the  first 
part  of  a  compound  name  Ye-hau,  Ye-ho,  after  the  analogy  of 
"123  from  "123  ,  because  Yahu,  as  a  part  of  a  compound  word, 
having  an  accent  of  its  own,  would  have  drawn  the  tone  unduly 
back,  while  the  tone  would  naturally  rest  upon  ^tT  for  IPl^  when 
it  formed  the  last  syllable  of  a  compound  name.  That  "I"  should 
have  been  the  name  of  an  Assyrian  deity,  as  Delitzsch  asserts, 
has  not  yet  been  satisfactorily  established,  hence  this  argument 
also  falls  to  the  ground.     Driver^'*  says  in  regard  to  Delitzsch's 

31a  I  am  glad  to  find  that  I  agree  with  Professor  Jastrow  as  to  tlie  late  origin  of  the 
form  Yah  for  the  deity.  I  had  not  seen  his  article  in  the  ZA  W.,  Vol.  XVI,  when  I  reached 
the  above  conclusion. 

31b  Ibid.  In  his  article  in  the  Journal  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Literature,  Vol.  XIII, 
pp.  101-27,  Jastrow  holds  that  most  of  the  compound  names  with  a  final  Jl^  or  ^H"^  are  not 
compounds  with  the  divine  name,  but  that  the  final  element  represents  merely  an  "  emphatic 
afiormative,"  while  the  names  with  initial  in"'  are  "  uncontracted  Hiphil  forms  of  verbs 
with  initial  vowel  letter." 

31c  So  also  Jastrow  in  his  article  in  the  ZA  W.,  Vol.  XVI,  p.  1.5. 

32  Zeitschrift  fur  VOlkerpsychologie,  Vol.  XIV,  pp.  175-90.  Cf.  also  G.  B.  Gray,  Hebrew 
Proper  Names,  pp.  149  sqq. 

33  Studia  Biblia,  Vol.  I,  p.  18. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON         15 

theory :  "  The  theory  of  an  Accadian  origin  unquestionably  breaks 
down."     Tiele^*  expresses  himself  also  to  that  efiPect. 

Margoliouth  sees  a  proof  for  his  identification  of  Yahweh  with 
Ea  =  Sin  in  the  fact  that  the  Israelites  assembled  in  the  open,  for 
religious  service,  shortly  after  the  appearance  of  the  new  moon. 
He  supports  his  theory  with  the  rabbinical  saying:  "He  who  at 
the  proper  time  pronounces  the  benediction  on  the  new  moon  is 
as  one  who  welcomes  the  very  presence  of  the  Shekinah,  or  divine 
glory."  The  feast  of  the  new  moon  is  of  very  ancient  date,  and 
it  was  doubtless  a  feast  which  was  celebrated  by  almost  all 
Semitic  peoples,  and  therefore  also  known  to  the  Israelites  in 
pre-Mosaic  times.  However,  it  was  not  an  exclusively  Semitic 
custom,  for  we  meet  with  it  in  one  form  or  another  among  almost 
all  peoples.  Thus  Tacitus  ^^  tells  us  that  the  ancient  Germans 
met  on  new  and  full  moon.  They  even  worshiped  the  moon  as 
late  as  the  early  Christian  centuries,  so  that  Hrabanus  Maurus, 
who  died  858,  charged  the  Hessians  that  they  still  saluted  their 
"Her  Mon,"  and  that  they  with  noise  and  shouting  came  to  the 
assistance  of  the  oppressed  moon  (by  eclipses).  The  Indians 
deified  the  four  phases  of  the  moon.^^ 

The  feast  of  the  new  moon  is  not  mentioned  by  J,  E,  or  D ; 
only  by  P.  In  Numb.  10:10;  28:11  sqq.  and  Ezek.  46:3  it 
seems  that  the  feast  is  revived  again,  having  perhaps  fallen  into 
oblivion  before  this  time  by  the  introduction  of  the  sabbath, 
which  seems  to  have  taken  its  place.  But  the  fact  that  J,  E,  and 
D  do  not  mention  the  feast  of  the  new  moon  seems  to  justify  us  in 
believing  that  the  law  laid  much  less  stress  upon  the  observance 
of  this  feast  than  did  the  practice  of  the  people.  The  thought, 
however,  is  patent  that  J,  E,  and  D  ignored  this  feast  intention- 
ally, as  superstitious  practices  probably  had  grown  out  of  the 
same.  We  may  take  it  for  granted,  even,  that  many  superstitious 
ideas  and  heathen  customs  were  connected  with  this  feast,  as  with 
other  things  in  the  religious  life  of  Israel.  Thus  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  was  looked  upon  as  a  fetish,  1  Sam.  4::  3  sqq.  That  a 
rabbinical  saying,  which  without  question  is  of  recent  date,  should 
be  adduced  in  support  of  the  theory  that  Yahweh  is  identical 
with  Ea  =  Sin,  is  taking  too  many  things  for  granted.  All  that 
it  can  prove  is  that  superstitious  practices  were  still  prevalent  in 

3*  Theologisch  Tijdschrift,  March,  1882.  35  Germania,  p.  11. 

36  Cf.  Lassen,  Indische  Alterth.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1118  sg. 


16         OKIGIN  AND  INTEKPKETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON 

the  Jewish  church  at  a  time  when  the  more  spiritual  side  of 
Yahwism  had  become  a  long-established  fact.  However,  the 
greatest  difficulty  in  regard  to  this  theory  is  the  identification  of 
Ea  with  Sin.  Ea  was  the  god  of  the  abyss,  while  Sin  was  the 
moon-god.  Ea  freed  Sin  when  he  was  bewitched  through  the 
seven  evil  spirits.^'  This  is  against  their  identification  with  one 
another ;  besides,  the  passage  which  Hommel  cites  to  prove  their 
identity  admits  of  an  entirely  different  interpretation  from  that 
given  by  him,  and  thus  his  theory,  as  well  as  that  of  Margoliouth, 
falls  to  the  ground  because  of  insufficient  proof. 

The  primary  conception  of  Yahweh  as  we  find  it  recorded  in 
the  Jewish  records  is  that  of  a  war-god,  who  with  all  his  terrible- 
ness  takes  the  part  of  his  people.  He  marches  out  for  them  or 
with  them  to  battle,  Judg.  4:14;  Hab.  3:13;  Zech.  14:3;  cf. 
Ps.  44:9.  He  is  presented  as  a  mighty  warrior,  Exod.  15:3,  and 
in  the  sacred  chest  accompanies  the  Israelites  to  the  battlefield. 
He  comes  in  fury  from  his  ancient  seat,  like  stormclouds,  fore- 
boding destruction  and  annihilation  to  all  that  is  in  his  way, 
Judg.  5:4  sg.  This  is  the  earliest  conception  of  Yahweh,  and  if 
there  ever  was  an  identification  of  Yahweh  with  the  moon-god, 
this  conception  must  necessarily  be  of  a  later  date. 

The  theory  that  Yahweh  is  derived  from  Phoenician  or  north 
Semites  has  found  the  support  of  many  scholars.  in1!l^  is  iden- 
tified with  'law  or  'leuco.     The  form  'law  is  found  in  Macrobius  :^* 

^pat,(.o   Tov   iravTwv  virarov  ®eov 
e/Ajaev'     law   xeifxaTi  /xev   t'    atSrjv, 
Alu   8'    etapos   ap-f^ofjiivoio    He'Aioi/  ok 
Oepov<i  ix€TOTr(x)pov   8'   d/Spov  'law. 

This  passage  is  attributed  to  an  oracle  of  Apollo  Clarius  and 
originated  with  Judaizing  Gnostics  to  whom  the  names  'law  and 
"Ee^acod  were  objects  of  mystical  speculation. 

The  other  much-cited  passage  is  that  by  Porphyry  preserved 
in  Theodoret :'' 

tcTTOpei  8e  TO.  Trepl  'lovoaiwv  dXrjOecrTaTa,  otl  Kat  rots  tottois  Kai  Tois 
6v6 /xaaiv  avTwv  ra  crv/jiffxjovoTaTa,  ^ay)(ovvtd6wv  6  Bt/pvtios  eiXr/<^a)s  to.  vtto- 
IMvyfJ-ara  irapa.  'ItpofxfidXov  tov   iepeois   ®eov  tov  'leuw.*" 

37  Cf.  Jastrow,  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  p.  276. 

^»  Saturn,  c.  18,  ed.  Gronov.,  p.  291;  ed.  Ambro.  Theodos.,  Patav.,  p.  257;  cf.  Tholuck, 
Vermischte  Schriften,  Vol.  I,  pp.  385  sq. 

39  Grac.  affect,  curatio  disp.,  Vol.  II,  p.  740,  ed.  Halle. 
*"  Cf.  Eusebius,  Praeparatio  Ev.,  1:6. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OP  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON         17 

Porphyry  states  here  that  "Eayx^ovviddcov  has  written  a  true  Jewish 
history,  and  bases  this  upon  the  supposition  that  l^ayx^vvtddayv 
had  received  the  necessary  information  from  a  priest  of  'leuco. 
He  identifies  'leva)  with  niH'' .  Though  often  adduced  to  prove 
that  Yahweh  is  derived  from  the  Oanaanites,  these  two  names, 
'law  and  'leva),  do  not  prove  anything  of  the  kind.  We  must  not 
lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  these  two  quotations  are  of  Gnostic 
origin.  These  names  were  doubtless  designed  to  express  the 
tetragrammaton  and  have  simply  been  taken  out  of  Old  Testa- 
ment reminiscences."  Again,  certain  Canaanitish  proper  names 
with  an  end  syllable  which  appears  to  be  a  suffix  "yah"  are  said 
to  be  compounds  with  H"' .  Thus  the  Phoenician  name  "Bithyas" 
as  found  in  Virgil,*"  Greek  BiOvwi.  The  name  ought  to  be,  per- 
haps, Bithybas,  the  h  having  been  omitted  ;  hence  the  name  is 
b3''Q^ri2 ,  and  we  must  compare  it  with  the  biblical  blSl^rijl  .^^  The 
other  Phoenician  name  often  adduced  to  prove  a  north-Semitic 
origin  is  'A/SSato?  =  iXl2y  =  "his  worshiper"  =  "'123'.  The  "^  as 
well  as  the  U5  are  suffixes  of  the  third  person  singular.**  Accord- 
ing to  these  explanations  there  exists  not  the  slightest  point  of 
relationship  between  these  names  and  the  name  Yahweh,  in  what- 
ever form  it  may  be.  Even  if  we  did  not  accept  Schroder's 
explanation,  all  we  can  say  at  the  best  is  that  the  name  Yahweh 
in  its  Greek  form  sounds  through  these  names.  That  we  find 
now  and  then  traces  of  that  name  in  non-Hebrew  names  is  not  at 
all  strange,  when  we  consider  the  tendency  of  the  ancients  to 
worship  gods  other  than  their  national  deities.  And  it  is 
doubtless  the  case  here  that  individual  men  for  an  inexplicable 
reason  worshiped  Yahweh,  though  they  did  not  know  what 
Yahweh  meant  to  the  Hebrews.  He  was  to  them  a  god  like  all 
the  rest.  A  still  stronger  reason,  and  to  my  mind  a  conclusive 
one,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  Yahweh,  from  earliest  times  onward, 
warred  against  the  Oanaanites.  As  such  he  is  represented  in  the 
"Song  of  Deborah,"*'^  one  of  the  oldest  portions  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  this  song  it  is  Yahweh  who  completely  destroyed  the 
kings  of  Canaan  ;  cf.  vs.  20.  Vss.  2  and  4,  "  Yahweh,  when  thou 
wentest  forth  from  Seir,  when  thou  marchedst  from  the  region 

*i  Cf.  especially  the  decisive  arguments  of  Baudissin,  Religionsgeschichte,  Vol.  I,  pp. 
218  SQg. 

*2  Aen.  1.  738 ;  8.  672.  703 ;  11.  396 ;  Silius  2.  409,  etc. 

•»3  Cf.  Schrflder,  PhOniz.  Gram.,  p.  114.  « Ibid.,  p.  152. 

*5  Cf.  especially  the  excellent  commentary  of  Professor  Moore. 


18         OEIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGEAMMATON 

of  Edom,  the  earth  quaked,  the  heavens  dripped,"  in  connection 
with  vss.  5  sqq.,  describe  how  Yahweh  had  from  earliest  times 
fought  against  the  Canaanites  for  his  people  Israel. 

The  fact  that  we  find  many  proper  names,  even  till  the  time 
of  David,  with  b^n  has  led  many  critics  to  believe  that  the  name 
Yahweh  is  of  later  date.  In  1  Chron.  8:33  ;  9:39  a  person  whose 
name  is  b3?in'il35<  is  mentioned  ;  the  same  person  is  called  in  2  Sam., 
chaps.  2-4,  ^ll23n"■^^'^5 .  Gideon's  name  is  in  Judg.  6:32  b^3.y_, 
while  he  is  called  in  2  Sam.  11:21  Snm"|V  One  of  David's 
sons  whose  name  was  originally  3'T'bn  =  "Baal  knows"  is  called 
in  2  Sam.  5:16  yTbl5<  =  "God  knows."  Men  like  David  and 
also  Saul,  whose  loyalty  to  Yahweh  cannot  be  questioned,  gave 
to  their  children  names  which  were  compounds  of  j^D. .  This 
shows  that  at  one  time  the  name  b^H  was  used  innocently,  simply 
meaning  "lord"  and  having  no  connection  whatever  with  the 
Syro-Phoenician  deity,  Baal.  The  discontinuation  of  names 
compounded  with  b^J,  after  the  time  of  David  does  not  prove  that 
Yahweh  had  just  then  been  introduced,  as  Colenzo  seems  to  think, 
but  rather  the  substitution  of  ri'^IJ^  for  bS'Zl  seems  to  indicate 
that  the  common  people  of  Israel  confounded  {1151'' ,  the  Baal  of 
Israel,  with  the  Phoenician  Baal. 

It  has  been  held  that  the  god  whom  Israel  worshiped  during 
the  period  of  their  sojourn  in  the  wilderness  was  not  Yahweh, 
but,  according  to  Amos  5:25,  Chivan.  Daumer*®  identifies 
Chivan  with  Moloch  and  Moloch  with  Yahweh.  He  bases  his 
theory  upon  the  fact  of  Solomon's  friendship  with  the  Phoenicians 
and  upon  2  Chron.  15:8,  which  verse,  however,  has  reference 
only  to  the  repairing  of  the  altar.  2  Sam.  12:31  is  adduced  by 
the  same  writer  in  proof  of  his  theory  that  David  was  a  Moloch 
worshiper.  The  very  fact  that  Moloch  was  the  national  god  of 
the  Ammonites,  and  that  only  prisoners  of  war  were  sacrificed 
to  him,  is  disastrous  to  this  theory.  The  parallel  passage  in 
1  Chron.  20:3  reads  "1123''1  =  "and  he  sawed,"  but  while  he 
might  saw  them  with  saws,  as  Professor  Smith*'  points  out, 
the  other  instruments  would  have  no  suitable  verbs.  The  Qeri 
in  2  Samuel  is  doubtless  right,  and  we  ought   to  read,  instead 

of   "pb?J ,  1|lb;a  =  brick  mold  f    cf.  ^>jJuo   and   ^Lilvio ,   and  for 

*6  Der  Feuer-  und  Molochdienst  der  alien  Hebrder,  Braunschweig,  1842. 

4'  Commentary  on  Samuel. 

*8  Cf.  ZAW.,  1882,  pp.  53-72,  espec.  §  14. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON         19 

T^yn  read  T^n^n .  These  emendations,  which  furnish  the  most 
natural  reading,  do  away  entirely  with  the  idea  that  David  sacri- 
ficed his  captives  to  Moloch  or  any  other  deity ;  but  he  put  them 
to  hard  labor,  which  was  a  very  natural  thing  for  any  oriental 
potentate  to  do.  These  necessary  emendations  make  the  hypothe- 
sis of  Daumer  and  Dozy  rather  doubtful.  Nor  was  the  tabernacle, 
as  Dozy  imagines,  a  sanctuary  of  Baal ;  but  Yahweh's  principal, 
perhaps  his  only,  sanctuary  at  the  time  of  Moses  was  the  ark  of 
the  covenant.*''  The  verse  in  Amos,  chap.  5,  upon  which  both 
Daumer  and  Dozy  have  based  their  hypothesis  is  rather  of  doubt- 
ful genuineness.  Besides,  the  two  deities  mentioned  in  this  verse 
are  Assyrian  deities.^"  inlSD  is  the  god  Adar  and  "VS  (Arab. 
jjI^-a5^)  is  Saturn.  The  verb  Dn^^lT^I  must  refer  to  the  future," 
which  is  the  only  grammatical  construction  possible.  Vs.  26 
foretells,  therefore,  the  judgment  which  is  waiting  for  Israel : 
"They  shall  take  their  gods  and  go  with  them  into  exile."  This, 
however,  opens  a  new  difficulty, ^^  as  according  to  Hosea  10:5; 
Isa.  46:1;  Jer.  48:7;  49:3  the  gods  of  a  conquered  nation  are 
taken  away  as  booty  by  the  victor,  who  takes  them  with  him  into 
his  own  country,  and  mainly  for  this  reason  the  verse  is  regarded 
as  an  interpolation.  Another  fact  which  favors  the  idea  that 
this  verse  is  interpolated  is  that  Amos  nowhere  charges  Israel 
with  idolatry,  but  with  an  overzealousness  for  Yahweh.  Well- 
hausen's  opinion  that  this  verse  has  taken  the  place  of  an  earlier 
one,  which  contained  a  severe  threat  against  Israel,  seems  to  me 
very  plausible.  Hence  Amos,  chap.  5,  supports  neither  Daumer's 
theory  that  nin*'  is  identical  with  Moloch  —  Chivan,  nor  Dozy's 
hypothesis  that  Israel  commenced  with  a  bj'H  worship  and  that 
the  tabernacle  was  a  sanctuary  of  Baal,  the  Phoenician  deity. 

A  more  plausible  explanation  of  the  name  niJT^  is  that  theory 
which  makes  him  the  god  of  the  Kenites.^^  After  Moses  had 
killed  the  Egyptian,  he  fled  to  the  land  of  Midian,  Exod.  2:15 
(J),  and  married  Zipporah,  the  daughter  of  the  priest  of  Midian, 
Exod.  2:21  (J);  3:1  (E).  This  priest  was  a  Kenite,  Judg.  1 :  16  ; 
read  with  LXX^  nnn  Numb.  10:29;  Judg.  4:11  "^2  ■nh  nnni  .'* 

«  Cf.  Wellhausen,  Skizzen,  Vol.  I,  p.  9. 

50  Cf.  Schrader,  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1874,  pp.  S24:sqq.;  KAT.^,  pp.  U2sqq. 

51  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  Grammatik,  26.  ed.,  p.  326,  a,-;  Driver,  Tenses,  p.  119,  a,  note  1. 

52  Cf.  Hitzig,  Die  kleinen  Propheten. 

53C/.  C.  P.  Tiele,  Vergel.  Geschied.,  etc.,  1872,  pp.  o55sqq.;  Outlines  of  the  History  of 
Religion,  p.  85;  Stade,  Geschichte,  1883,  pp.  130  sq.;  G.  F.  Moore,  Judges,  1895,  pp.  134,  139, 
179 ;  K.  Budde,  Religion  of  Israel  to  the  Exile,  1898. 

5*  Cf.  Moore,  Commentary,  p,  32. 


20         ORIGIN  AND  INTEEPEETATION  OF  THE  TETEAGRAMMATON 

Here  Moses  learned  to  know  Yah  well,  the  god  of  the  Kenites,  an 
earnest,  solemn  deity,  who  differed  greatly  from  the  voluptuous 
Egyptian  gods.  The  Kenites  were  a  tribe  of  the  Midianites  ; 
c/.  Numb.  10:29  with  Judg.  4:11.  A  part  of  the  Kenites  accom- 
panied the  Israelites  through  the  desert ;  cf.  Numb.  10:29-32,  and 
therefore  received  dwelling-places  in  Palestine,  Judg.  1:16,  in 
the  south  of  the  country,  in  the  neighborhood  of  their  former 
home.  In  later  years  they  were  frequently  associated  with  the 
Amalekites,  1  Sam.  15:6;  Numb.  24:20  sgg. 

Much  is  made  of  the  fact  by  Tiele  that  the  Rechabites,  a 
Kenite  tribe,  were  assiduous  Yahweh  worshipers. ^^  The  only 
passage  which  tells  anything  about  the  origin  of  the  Rechabites 
is  1  Ohron.  2:55,  according  to  which  passage  Hamath  was  the 
father  of  the  house  of  Rechab,  a  Kenite,  and  from  him  descended 
also  the  three  families  of  Kenites  which  dwelt  at  Jabez.  From 
the  fact  that  this  careful  statement  is  made  we  may  conclude  that 
the  Rechabites  were  not  originally  Hebrews,  but  were  admitted 
into  their  community  and  religion.  According  to  Jer.  35:6  a 
son  of  Rechab  was  Jonadab,  who  lived  under  Jehu  and  was  noted 
for  his  being  a  very  zealous  Yahweh  worshiper.  Yahweh  worship 
was  fully  established  in  Israel  at  this  time.  Is  it,  therefore,  not 
surprising  that  not  a  single  reference  is  made  to  the  religious 
belief  of  his  ancestors  ?  The  reason  lies,  doubtless,  in  the  fact 
that  the  Rechabites  who  lived  before  Jonadab  were  no  Yahweh 
worshipers  at  all,  which  also  the  incident  as  related  in  Jer.,  chap. 
35,  seems  to  favor.  Besides,  the  passages  which  are  adduced 
to  prove  the  connection  between  the  Kenites  and  Rechabites 
(1  Chron.  2:55  ;  Jer.,  chap.  35)  are  not  such  that  we  can  unques- 
tionably rely  upon  them.  The  statement  in  1  Chron.  4: 10,  "Jabez 
called  upon  the  God  of  Israel,"  seems  to  point  also  to  the  fact 
that  these  families  were  no  Israelites,^*  else  the  statement  would 
not  be  that  Jabez  called  upon  the  God  of  Israel,  but  rather  "his 
God."  The  Kenitic  origin  of  the  Rechabites  cannot  be  firmly 
established.  They  were  no  Israelites.  But  even  if  the  connec- 
tion between  Rechabites  and  Kenites  could  be  proved,  the  proba- 
bility is  that  the  latter  were  a  branch  of  the  Amalekites,"  with 
whom  they  are  so  frequently  associated,  and  not  of  the  Midian- 
ites.    No  one  would  dare  to  charge  the   Amalekites,  in  view  of 

55  So  also  Buddo,  pp.  35  sq.  56  So  also  Furrer,  art.  "  Jabez,"  RHW. 

5'  So  also  Professor  Moore,  p.  34 ;  cf.  note. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON         21 

what  we  know  of  them,  as  having  been  at  any  time  Yahweh  wor- 
shipers. In  view  of  these  facts,  and  since  nothing  is  told  as  to 
the  religion  of  Jonadab's  ancestors,  but  Jonadab  is  presented 
rather  as  a  zealot  for  Yahweh,  which  is  often  true  in  the  case  of 
new  converts,  I  conclude  that  the  Eechabites  accepted  Yahwism 
when  they  were  admitted  into  the  commonwealth  of  Israel.  No 
doubt  the  narrative  as  given  in  Exod.,  chap.  18  (E) ,  seems  intended 
to  convey  the  impression  that  the  worship  of  Yahweh  had  been 
practiced  by  the  Kenites,  though  it  is  not  expressly  stated.  Yet 
may  we  ask  ourselves,  if  the  Kenites  were  really  Yahweh  wor- 
shipers :  How  is  it  that  we  do  not  find  any  traces  of  this  worship 
among  the  nations  with  whom  they  came  into  such  intimate  rela- 
tions as,  e.  g.,  the  Amalekites,  1  Sam.  15:6;  Numb.  24: : 20  sqq., 
among  whom  they  even  sojourned  ?  For  true  to  their  Bedawin 
instincts  they  could  not  stay  long  in  one  place,  and  soon  roamed 
about  again  and  put  up  their  tents  wherever  they  found  pasture. 
So  also  Heber  the  Kenite  left  his  southern  home,  Judg.  4:11, 
and  pitched  his  tent  by  Kedesh.  The  tendency  of  the  ancient 
peoples  was  to  take  up  into  their  pantheon  the  gods  of  other 
nations,  especially  when  such  nations  or  tribes  were  strong,  and 
in  particular  when  the  god  of  those  tribes  or  nations  proved  to 
be  such  a  powerful  one  as,  e.  g.,  Yahweh.  But  we  do  not  find 
any  traces  of  Yahwism  among  the  nations  with  whom  the  Kenites 
came  into  close  contact.  Does  not,  therefore,  the  fact  seem  evi- 
dent that  the  Kenites  were  no  Yahweh  worshipers  at  all,  but,  like 
the  Rechabites,  had  accepted  Yahweh  from  the  Israelites  at  the 
earliest  period  of  the  history  of  the  Israelitish  nation  ? 

None  of  the  theories  examined  above  gives  an  adequate 
answer  to  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  name  Yahweh.  "The 
theory  of  an  Accadian  origin  unquestionably  breaks  down."  The 
same  is  true  in  respect  to  a  Phrenician  origin,  while  the  Greek 
writings  do  not  prove  anything,  inasmuch  as  they  are  of  Gnostic 
origin  and  of  a  very  late  date.  Though  there  seems  to  be  a  point 
of  contact  between  Hamatite  names  and  Yahweh  which  cannot 
be  explained  away,  yet  it  is  safer  to  accept  the  theory  that  some 
individual  Syrians  had  accepted  Yahweh  as  one  of  their  gods, 
which  Schrader^**  considers  may  have  been  the  case  also  with  the 
Assyrians.  The  Kenitic  or  Midianitic  origin  cannot  be  firmly 
established,  though  there   are,  as  I  have   shown,  points  which 

^s  Jahrbilcher  filr  protest.  Theol.,  1875,  p.  317. 


22        ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGEAMMATON 

favor  such  an  origin ;  yet  the  arguments  against  this  theory  are 
weightier  than  the  arguments  for  such  an  origin.  Therefore/* 
"the  hypothesis  of  the  introduction  of  Yahwism  from  without 
must  be  definitely  abandoned."  If  the  advocates  of  this  theory 
"are  to  take  any  account  at  all  of  the  evidence  of  the  historical 
documents,  then  the  Egyptians  are  really  the  only  people  that 
can  come  into  consideration.'"*"  However,  the  impossibility  of 
identifying  Yahweh  with  an  Egyptian  deity  has  been  shown  above. 

It  would  be  rather  an  astonishing  phenomenon  if  a  people 
should  accept  a  foreign  name  for  its  supreme,  for  its  only,  deity. 
It  is  fully  established  that  the  Israelites  worshiped  at  times  other 
gods,  and  even  recognized  the  reality  of  other  gods.  In  Judg. 
11:24  Israel  acknowledges  Chemosh  as  a  true  god,  i.  e.,  the 
national  god  of  his  people,  the  Moabites.  His  reality  was  no 
more  doubted,  at  least  in  the  earlier  periods,  than  that  of  Yahweh. 
To  the  fury  of  Chemosh  Israel  attributed  the  signal  defeat  which 
it  suffered,  according  to  2  Kings  3:27,  at  the  hand  of  Moab, 
However,  this  does  not  make  it  less  true  that  Yahweh  was  the 
only  God  of  the  Israelites.  I  ask  now :  Would  a  people  having 
such  a  deep  religious  feeling  as  Israel,  to  which  state  and  religion 
seemed  almost  identical,  call  its  God  by  a  foreign  name  ?  Would 
it  give  expression  to  its  religious  emotions,  to  the  holiest  senti- 
ments which  are  born  in  the  breasts  of  men,  by  calling  upon  a 
deity  which  was  not  distinctively  Israelitish,  but  a  strange  god  ? 
How  utterly  irreconcilable  with  this  is  the  whole  national  life 
of  Israel  as  it  unfolds  itself  before  our  eyes !  Surely  Egypt, 
the  D''"iny  XT'Z ,  would  be  least  of  all  the  land  which  gave  to  the 
Israelites  the  name  for  their  national  deity.  Nor  must  we  look  for 
the  origin  of  this  name  among  the  Canaanites.  The  war  which 
the  Israelites  waged  against  them  was  a  war  of  extermination 
ordered  by  Yahweh,  which  fact  is  certainly  contradictory  to  the 
view  that  Yahweh  was  an  ancient  Canaanitish  deity.  There  is 
more  foundation  for  the  theory  that  Assyria  is  the  land  that  gave 
Israel  the  name  for  its  deity.  But  even  here  the  proofs  adduced 
in  support  of  the  hypothesis  are  not  so  strong  as  to  be  decisive. 
We  must  look  for  the  origin  of  this  name  somewhere  else. 

The  fact  that  Yahwism  was  so  inextricably  interwoven  with 
the  national  life  of  Israel  ought  to  lead  us  to  seek  for  the  origin 

59  Kuenen,  "  National  Religions  and  Universal  Religions,"  Hibbert  Lectures,  1882,  p.  62. 

60  Kuenen,  op.  cit.,  p.  63. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON         23 

of  this  name  within  Israel.  We  should  not  seek  for  it  among 
nations  that  came  in  contact  with  Israel,  in  whose  pantheon 
a  deity  with  a  similar  name  is  found  which  is  almost  certainly  a 
corruption  of  Yahweh,®'  as  I  have  shown  above.  Only  Israel 
could  have  given  birth  to  this  name,  in  which  the  very  life  of  the 
nation  pulsates. 

The  first  question  which  confronts  us  in  seeking  to  establish 
the  Hebrew  origin  of  Yahweh  is  whether  this  name  was  known 
before  the  times  of  Moses.  Through  P  we  know  that  the  name  of 
the  mother  of  Moses  was  in'DT  Exod.  6: 20  ;  Numb.  26:59.  As  it 
stands  here  it  is  a  compound  name  of  W  and  121) .  Was  this 
name  given  by  Moses  to  his  mother  in  later  years,  or  was  it  her 
original  name?  The  interpretation,  "Yahweh  is  glory,"  seems  to 
point  to  an  important  event  in  the  life  of  this  woman,  perhaps  to 
the  turning-point  of  her  religious  faith  from  a  non-Yahwistic 
to  a  Yahwistic  religion.  However,  when  the  name  of  a  person, 
especially  of  one  who  occupied  a  conspicuous  position,  was 
changed,  we  find  always  a  statement  to  that  effect.  Thus,  accord- 
ing to  Gen.  17:5,  the  patriarch's  name  is  changed  from  "Abram" 
into  "Abraham,"  and,  according  to  vs.  15,  "Sarai"  into  "Sarah." 
Hoshea  the  son  of  Nun  is  called  by  Moses  "Joshua."  We  do  not 
find  any  such  statement  concerning  a  change  of  the  name  of  the 
mother  of  Moses,  but  she  is  introduced  as  IHjV  .  There  are  two 
possibilities.  The  name,  which  is  preserved  only  by  P,  was 
perhaps  not  understood  by  the  writer  as  being  a  compound  with 
t^'',  or  the  name  "Yahweh"  was  known  before  the  time  of  Moses. 
There  are  a  number  of  compound  names  with  T\''  having  refer- 
ence to  very  remote  times.  In  Gen.  22:2  we  find  a  land  named 
»T'"lTjn  .  Though  the  writer  interprets  it  as  being  a  compound 
with  Tl'' ,  we  cannot  attribute  to  it  more  authority  than  to  the 
family  names  H^HX  1  Chron.  2:25;  r\^2i<,  T?'^'')^  1  Chron. 
7:8,  because  we  know  that  the  chronicler  transferred  a  number 
of  family  names  to  ancient  times.  These  names  are  of  doubtful 
age,  and  presumably  of  very  late  origin,  and  certainly  post- 
Mosaic.  Yahweh  declares  himself  to  be  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  Exod.  3:6  (JE),  but  he  says  in  Exod.  6:3  (P), 
"by  my  name  'Yahweh'  I  was  not  known  to  them,"  but  as  "El 
Shaddai."  Thus  when  Moses  speaks  of  the  God  of  his  fathers  he 
can  refer  only  to  El  Shaddai  ;  cf.  Exod.  15:2  ;  18:4  (JE).     This 

61  Cf.  also  Baudisein,  Studien  zur  semitischen  Religionsgeschichte,  Vol.  I,  p.  223. 


24         ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON 

explicit  statement  in  Exod.  6:3,  and  the  fact  that  none  of  the 
other  compound  names  with  Pi"'  (Gen.  22:2  ;  1  Chron.  2:25  ;  7:8) 
are  of  pre-Mosaic  origin,  seem  to  favor  the  presumption  that  the 
name  of  the  mother  of  Moses,  provided  the  name  is  old,  was  not 
a  compound  with  tT^ .  Perhaps  we  ought  to  read  with  Well- 
hausen*'^  "Ikabod,"  or,  what  is  still  more  plausible,  as  the  name 
is  preserved  only  by  P,  regard  it  as  being  introduced  by  P  for 
dogmatic  reasons.  We  are  therefore  not  justified  in  the  least  in 
going  beyond  the  beginning  of  the  public  career  of  Moses  in 
search  for  the  origin  of  the  name  TTlTl''  .^^ 

At  the  time  of  the  conquest  the  worship  of  Yahweh  had 
become  an  established  fact,  e.  g.,  Judg.,  chap.  5,  "The  Song  of 
Deborah."  The  narratives  in  Judges  and  Samuel  mention 
Yahweh  as  a  tribal  deity  of  Israel.  The  exclamation  in  Exod. 
15:21,  "Sing  ye  to  Yahweh,"  is  very  ancient,*^*  and  seems  to  be  a 
part  of  the  Mosaic  portion  of  the  poem.  So  also  Exod.  17:16; 
cf.  Dillmann,  but  read  with  D6renbourg,  JA.,  1867,  pp.  485  sqq., 
n^D3  =  5^D3  instead  of  fl^  C3  . 

This  would  lead  us  to  seek  the  origin  of  the  name  in  the  time 
of  Moses.  The  whole  Old  Testament  agrees  in  this,  that  after 
the  deliverance  from  Egypt  a  covenant  was  made  between  Yahweh 
and  the  Israelites  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Sinai,  i.  e.,  Yahweh  was 
formally  accepted  as  the  national  God  of  Israel.  It  was  not 
Molekh**^  or  BaaP^  with  whom  the  Israelites  covenanted  and  whom 
the  people  worshiped  down  to  the  time  of  the  captivity,  and  for 
whom  Samuel  and  his  school  first  introduced  Yahweh  as  the 
covenant  god,  making  it  a  pia  fraus,  but  Yahweh.  Superior  to 
all  doubts  which  have  been  expressed  in  regard  to  the  deity 
accepted  by  the  Israelites  as  their  national  god  at  the  memo- 
rable time  at  Mount  Sinai  is  the  self-consciousness  of  the  people, 
which  has  been  recorded  by  their  prophets,  namely,  that  it  was 
Yahweh  and  no  other  god  whom  they  accepted.  Having  estab- 
lished this,  we  are  prepared  to  express  in  definite  terms  the 
moment  when  this  new  religion  was  born.     No   other  moment 

62  Geschichte,  Vol.  I,  p.  360  A. 

63  Against  this  view  see  Kuenen,  De  Godsdienst,  Vol.  I,  p.  276;  Spurrel,  Notes  on  the 
Hebrew  Text  of  Genesis,  1887,  p.  376 ;  Ewald,  Tholuck,  et  al.,  who  hold  that  the  name  Yahweh 
was  perhaps  known  as  a  designation  for  "  el "  in  a  limited  circle,  at  least  in  the  family  of 
Moses  or  in  the  tribe  of  Joseph. 

6*  Cf.  DUlmann ;  Driver,  Introduction,  5th  ed.  Against  the  above  view,  Cornill,  Ein- 
leitung,  p.  61. 

65  Daumer.  66  Colenzo ;  Dozy,  Die  Israeliten  zu  Mekka. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON         25 

can  be  pointed  out  for  the  birth  of  this  new  religion  than  that 
one  in  which  the  Israelites,  freed  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt, 
united  themselves  into  one  nation  formally  at  Mount  Sinai.  With 
the  political  birth  of  Israel  Yahwism  took  its  beginning.  And 
we  cannot  but  "recognize  the  fact  that  from  the  earliest  times 
down  to  the  Babylonian  captivity  Israel  had  its  own  national 
religion,  which  we  can  only  call  Yahwism.""  The  new  name 
which  Moses  had  introduced  was,  indeed,  of  greatest  significance, 
since  a  new  government  necessitates  a  new  name.  What  El 
Shaddai  could  not  or  did  not  do,  Yahweh  accomplished. 

The  time  of  the  origin  of  the  name  being  decided  upon,  let  us 
now  consider  the  name  itself.  The  name  Yahweh  occurs  in  the 
Old  Testament  6,823  times. "^^  It  is  the  proper  name  of  the  God 
of  Israel  and  was  revealed  to  Moses  according  to  E,  Exod.  3:12- 
15  and  6:3.  Therefore  this  God  and  no  other  god  can  be  the 
God  of  the  covenant. 

There  are  two  principal  derivations  which  are  offered  for  the 
name  Yahweh.  The  one  is  that  it  is  a  Qal  form ;  the  other,  first 
suggested  by  Gesenius,  that  it  is  a  Hiph'il  form.  Almost  all 
scholars  agree  that  the  root  from  which  this  noun  is  derived  is 
n^n  =  tlin  .  As  a  Hiph'll  form  it  is  variously  interpreted,  thus : 
"  He  who  brings  to  pass,"  i.  e.,  "The  performer  of  his  promises,"*® 
"The  one  bringing  into  being,"  "Life-giver,  Creator."™  Treated 
as  a  Qal  form,  the  name  is  explained  as  meaning  :  "The  one  ever 
coming  into  manifestation  as  the  God  of  redemption,""  "The 
existing,  ever-living.""  Nestle^'*  inclines  to  Qal,  though  he  is 
undecided.  Qal  =  "The  one  who  is;"  Hiph'il  would  convey  the 
idea  of  the  Creator.     Driver,'*  "He  will  approve  himself." 

Jewish  commentators  derive  the  name  from  the  Qal  b^tP2 
bpn  and  interpret  it  as  meaning  "The  absolute  being."  But  as 
made  known  to  Moses  the  name  is  a  causative  form  bs^S  ■p3'D 
^j'ln ,  a  Pi'el  and  not  a  Hiph'il.     It  signified  then  the  Creator, 

67  Kuenen,  Hibbert  Lectures,  1880,  p.  65. 

6i5  Professor  Briggs,  Hebrew  Lexicon,  edited  by  Professor  F.  Brown. 

69  Lagarde,  ZDMG.,  Vol.  XXII,  1868,  p.  331 ;  GOtt.  Gelehrt.  Anz.,  1885,  p.  91. 

™Schrader  in  Schenkel's  Bibel-Lexikon,  art.  "Jahve."  Cf.  also  Thes.,  p.  577,  note; 
KATfi,V-  25;  Kuenen,  Religion  of  Israel,  Vol.  I,  p.  279;  Tiele,  Histoire  comparie,  p.  345; 
Land,  Theol.  Tijdsch.,  1868,  p.  158;  et  al. 

71  Frz.  Delitzsch.  Genesis,  Engl,  transl.,  1888,  p.  113.  '2  Dillmann. 

''^  Eigennamen,  pp.  89,  91 ;  Jahrbiicher  d.  d.  Theol.,  1878. 

^iBiblia,  p.  17;  cf.  also  Baudissin,  Studien,  Vol.  I,  pp.  119  sqq.,  1876;  E.  Smith,  British 
and  Foreign  Evangel.  Rev.,  Vol.  V  ;  Hitzig,  Zeitschrift  fiir  wiss.  Theol.,  1875,  pp.  9  sqq. ;  et  al. 


26         OKIGIN  AND  INTEKPEETATION  OF  THE  TETEAGKAMMATON 

he  who  has  formed  the  world  and  in  the  same  wonderful  manner 
forms  the  history  of  mankind.  This  last  statement  is  supported 
by  a  quotation  from  Shemorja  Agribos.'^  Most  modern  scholars 
derive  the  name  from  the  Qal  form  of  Tl^fl  =  tTlfl .  Though  the 
latter  root  is  not  found  in  the  Old  Testament  Hebrew,  it  can  be 
confidently  affirmed  to  be  a  remnant  of  an  older  period  in  the 
development  of  the  Hebrew  language,  as  is  also  the  case  with 
^ITL  .'*'     Compare  the  Arabic    "1^  and  Syriac  }om  . 

The  pronunciation  of  the  tetragrammaton  as  "Jehovah"  is  an 
absurdity.  The  earliest  appearance  of  this  transliteration  we  find 
in  two  passages  of  the  "Pugio  fidei,"  1278,  though  it  is  not 
improbable  that  this  is  due  to  a  later  copyist.  We  know  for 
certain,  however,  that  this  misnomer  was  brought  into  prominence 
by  Petrus  Galatinus,  confessor  of  Leo  X.  The  discontinuation 
of  the  pronunciation  of  the  tetragrammaton  by  the  Jews  is  doubt- 
less due  to  a  misinterpretation  of  Lev.  24:11,  16,  in  consequence 
of  which  the  name  was  considered  too  sacred  to  be  pronounced. 
The  word  np3 ,  which  gave  rise  to  this  superstition,  does  not  in 
any  way  support  such  an  idea.  tV2T  rii7J  ^"  DlIJ  npD  =  "he  that 
blasphemes  the  name  of  Yahweh  shall  be  put  to  death."  This 
sentence  does  not  contain  the  slightest  intimation  forbidding  the 
pronunciation  of  this  name,  though  the  Jews  explain  the  com- 
mand forbidding  the  pronunciation  by  the  above  passages. 
Another  reason,  and  doubtless  the  primary  one,  must  be  sought 
in  the  character  of  later  Judaism,  which  endeavored  after  the 
disappearance  of  the  prophets,  with  whom  also  the  "  living 
experience  of  the  divine  self -manifestation  "  disappeared,  to  put 
between  the  unapproachable  God  and  man  mysterious  media." 
That  this  was  the  reason  for  the  non-pronunciation  of  the  name 
Yahweh  is  also  proved  by  the  fact  that  in  the  second  book  of  the 
Psalms  the  parallel  psalms  to  the  first  book,  e.  g.,  53  and  70, 
parallel  to  14  and  40:14-18,  have  substituted  U^tlbiii,  for  nin\ 
so  that  we  find  such  phrases  as  ^^nbi^l  D^nbu5  Ps.  50:7;  U^rb^ 
^nb^  Ps.  43:4;  ni5<n^  DTlbi^,  etc.',  etc.  As  such  a  mysterious 
medium  the  name  Yahweh  was  perhaps  considered,  and  it  was 
pronounced  only  on  certain  solemn  occasions.  We  may  perhaps 
infer  from  Joma  VI:  2  that  this  name  was  pronounced  on  the  Day 

75  Ahron  ben  Eliah,  quoted  from  Delitzsch,  Zeitschrift  fUr  Luth.  Theol.,  1877. 

76  Of.  Ewald,  Die  Lehre  d.  Bibel  von  Gott,  Vol.  II,  p.  336,  note  1. 

77  Cf,  Josephua,  Antiquities,  II,  c.  12,  4. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON         27 

of  Atonement.  In  Joma  III  it  is  expressly  stated  that  the  divine 
name  was  invoked  twelve  times  on  the  Day  of  Atonement.'* 
According  to  Mishna  Tamid  VII: 2;  Sota  VII: 6  the  name  was 
pronounced  in  the  high-priestly  blessing.  The  Massoretic  text 
does  not  give  us  even  a  clue  as  to  the  pronunciation.  The  tetra- 
grammaton  is  generally  pointed  like  ■'DIU^ ,  although  the  initial  yod 
receives  only  the  simple  sh'wa,  while  prefixes  receive  the  vowel 
of  the  following  compound  sh'wa.  If,  however,  ilin"'  is  pre- 
ceded by  ■'j"i5 ,  it  receives  the  vowels  of  D''^b^5  =  tliri"] ,  e.  g., 
Gen.  15:^2  ;  Dent.  3:24  ;  9:26  ;  Isa.  28:16  ;  30:15  ;  19:22  ;  Ezek. 
2:4;  Amos  5:3,  etc.  nin*'  occurs  6,518  times;  nitTT'  is  found 
305  times.  The  Septuagint  translation  of  the  tetragrammaton  is 
always  Ky/oto<?  =  ■'3"&<  . 

The  pronunciation  of  the  first  syllable  of  the  tetragrammaton 
is  fixed  by  the  following  names:''  "jIT  1  Chron.  4:9,  10;  "^^IT 
1  Chron.  6:66  ;  26:31  ;  "3r  1  Chron"  5: 13  ;  Obr  Gen.  36:5, 14  ; 
npr  Gen.  25 :  26  sq.         ^  ' 

A  great  variety  of  transliterations  of  the  name  tl^Tl''  is  found 
in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers.  Clemens  of  Alexandria^"  reads 
'laoif,  which  doubtless  points  to  the  abbreviation  ^Sl"' .  Origen" 
reads  laco,  which  is  perhaps  ^IT' ,  and  also  la  —  lAH,  which  very 
probably  represents  Tl'' .  The  most  important  reading  is  that 
found  in  Epiphanes,  in  his  catalogue  of  divine  names,  and  that 
of  Theodoret,*^  who  both  write  and  pronounce  Ia/3e  =  Hl"^  .  This 
pronunciation  rests  upon  living  tradition,  as  they  claim  to  have 
obtained  it  from  the  Samaritans.  That  this  was  the  true  pronun- 
ciation is  attested  by  the  fact  that  R.  Mana,*^  who  lived  in  the 
fourth  century  after  Christ,  said  that  the  Samaritans  pronounced 
the  holy  name  in  oaths  which  the  Jews  should  not  imitate.  If 
the  Samaritans  had  not  employed  the  right  pronunciation,  there 
would  have  been  no  reason  for  R.  Mana  to  make  such  a  state- 
ment, since  to  use  a  substitute,  as  the  Jews  themselves  did, 
was  perfectly  allowable.  Such  substitutes  were  Dli^tj  ;  TSi'^pn ; 
C^'J'JJ .  Besides,  the  Samaritans  had  no  reason,  as  the  Jews 
imagined  that  they  had,  to  keep  the  pronunciation  secret.     All 

^s  Jerusalem  Talmud,  ed.  1545  ;  cf.  also  Philo,  De  vit.  Mos.,  III. 

79  Cf.  Land,  Theol.  Tijd.,  1868 ;  Dietrich,  ZA  W.,  1883,  pp.  286  sqq. ;  Baudissin,  ibid.,  p.  176 ; 
Delitzsch,  Paradies. 

80  Stromat.,  V,  666.  si  /„  Dan.,  2 :  45.  82  Quaest.  15  in  Exodo. 

83  Cf.  Tal.jer.  Sanh.,  X,  1 ;  Dalman,  Der  Gottesname  Adonaj  und  seine  Geschichte,  1889, 
p.  41,  note. 


28         OKIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGKAMMATON 

this  favors  the  pronunciation  of  the  tetragrammaton  as  tTlTT  ; 
besides,  the  abbreviation  can  easily  be  accounted  for,  if  the  word 
is  so  pointed."  So  far  as  the  form  is  concerned,  it  can  be  either 
Qal  or  Hiph'il.^^  The  most  weighty  argument  against  the  Hiph'il 
form  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  verb  'tl'^Ti  =  Jlin  does  not  occur  in 
the  Old  Testament  writings  in  that  form,  but  the  Piel  takes  its 
place ;  hence  Frz.  Delitzsch,  for  instance,  formerly  derived  the 
tetragrammaton  from  that  stem. 

The  divine  name  Yahweh  occurs  in  Genesis  161  times.  All 
the  passages  in  which  the  name  occurs  belong  to  J  or  JE,  with 
the  exception  of  17:1  ;  21:16,  which  belong  to  P,  and  also  14:22, 
which  belongs  to  a  special  source. 

J  does  not  mention  anything  in  regard  to  a  revelation  of  the 
name  Yahweh,  but  seems  to  assume  that  it  existed  before  the  time 
of  Moses,  being  known  even  to  Adam  and  Eve  (c/.  Gen.,  chaps. 
2  and  3),  and  therefore  uses  it  freely. 

On  the  lists  of  Thutmoses  III.  we  find  the  names  bi^npy"^  and 
bi^SC ,  the  full  names  for  Jacob  and  Joseph. '^'^  These  names 
belong  to  the  same  category  as:  blSS'^JIZJ'^  Gen.,  chap.  25,  "May 
God  hear;"  bjJ!"j\r^  Gen.,  chap.  32,  "May  God  strive;"  bxnr 
Josh.  19:18,  "May  God  sow;"  b^^tp:  Josh.  15:11,  "May  God 
build."  The  verbs  in  these  names  are  voluntatives.*^  These 
names  owe  their  origin  to  certain  historic  events,  and  are  pri- 
marily invocations  of  deities.  Thus  when  a  town  was  built  a 
deity  was  invoked  under  whose  protection  the  population  placed 
itself.  Such  an  invocation  was  doubtless  bi^DQ"^  =  "May  God 
build,"  viz.,  "the  city."  The  names  bi<np^  =  "'May  God  sup- 
plant," viz.,  "our  enemies,"  and  bS2CV  =  "May  God  increase," 
viz.,  "us,"  have  doubtless  a  similar  origin.  Mtiller*^  thinks  that 
these  names  can  have  reference  only  to  cities,  but  admits  that  in 
this  case  he  cannot  see  what  the  relations  of  these  two  cities  were 
to  the  two  persons  Jacob-el  and  Joseph-el.  Though  the  fact  that 
these  two  cities  existed,  bearing  the  names  blJ^'ZpS?''  and  blS^TCV , 
respectively,  is  a  proof  to  him  of  the  great  antiquity  of  these  two 
hero  names,  I  think  it  best  to  regard  these  two  names  as  very 
ancient  war-cries.  The  tribes  of  Jacob  and  Joseph,  pastoral 
Hebrew  tribes   which  were   roaming  over  the   plains  of   Syria, 

8*  Cf.  the  apocopated  form  of  the  imperfect  of  n"b  verbs.  85  Cf.  pp.  29  sg. 

86  Cf.  W.  Max  MuUer,  Asien  und  Europa,  p.  163. 

87  Cf.  Gray,  Hebrew  Proper  Names,  p.  218.  88  Ibid.,  p.  164. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON         29 

invoked  their  tribal  deities  under  the  respective  names  bu^Hpy'' 
and  bsSCV  .  The  weaker  tribe,  Joseph,  subsequently  joined  the 
stronger  tribe,  Jacob.  The  synoikismos  to  which  this  led  found 
expression  in  another  tribal  invocation  or  war-cry,  namely, 
bi^llZJ''  /^  In  this  same  category  belongs  niH^ .  In  Exod.  3:14, 
15  we  find  statements  which  seem  to  be  an  interpretation  of  this 
name.  In  vs.  14a  the  divine  name  is  rT'n>{  "I'lTIJ^  riTli^  ;  this  is 
shortened  in  vs.  14&  to  HTIU? ,  and  in  vs.  15  the  name  is  given  as 
nin*' .  nin*'  is  third  person  singular  imperfect  Qal  of  riTl  =  tllH 
and  signifies  "He  will  be."  This,  however,  would  be  a  very 
imperfect  and  unsatisfactory  meaning.  The  question  naturally 
arises,  He  will  be  what  ?  As  we  have  seen  in  connection  with 
the  other  names,  either  their  origin  was  due  to  a  historic  occur- 
rence or  they  were  war-cries.  So  also  the  name  nin"'  must  have 
taken  its  origin  under  similar  conditions,  and,  like  those  names, 
was  originally  b^  TDTl''  contracted  into  niri'^ .  When  we  con- 
sider the  conditions  in  which  the  Israelites  were  at  the  time  when 
Moses  revealed  to  them  this  new  deity,  we  cannot  but,  in  view  of 
what  was  said  in  regard  to  the  other  names,  look  upon  this  name 
as  expressing  a  relationship  into  which  this  deity  intended  to 
enter  with  the  Israelites.  Forsaken,  oppressed,  without  rights, 
crushed  to  the  ground,  they  needed  a  mighty  helper  who  would 
be  with  them.  And  this  seems  to  me  to  be  the  full  meaning  of 
this  name,  "God  will  be  with  us."®°  The  phrases,  "I  will  be  with 
thee,"  "I  will  be  with  you,"  "He  will  be  with  us,"  ring  through 
the  whole  Old  Testament.  "7)2^  TTTli^  was  the  word  of  encour- 
agement which  Moses  received  when  he  still  hesitated  to  go  and 
fulfil  what  he  had  been  ordered  to  do,  Exod.  3:12.  So  also 
Joshua  (Deut.  31:8,  23;  Josh.  1:5;  3:7)  received  the  assurance 
that  he  will  not  be  alone,  but  that  "He  will  be"  will  be  "with 
him."  The  same  interpretation  is  implied  in  Judg.  6:13:  W^ 
y:i2V  nin-'  =  and  if  "He  will  be"  be  "with  us;"  and  also  Judg. 
6:16  :  "7^3?  n^TM<  =  "I  will  be"  will  be  "with  thee."  In  Numb. 
14:10  Yahweh's  relationship  to  the  whole  people  is  expressed  in 
the  words  15n55  nin^l  =  but  "He  will  be"  will  be  "with  us." 
That  the  name  was  understood  to  express  this  relationship 
becomes  clearer  when  we  consider  some  of  the  negative  phrases 
in  which  this  relationship  is  expressed  ;  e.  g.,  Numb.  14:43  we  read, 
"Because  ye  turned  away  from  'He  will  be,'  'He  will  be'  will  not 

89  Cf.  Mliller,  ibid.,  and  G.  H.  Skipwith,  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  July,  1898. 

90  So  also  Hommel,  Expository  Times,  October,  1898;  Skipwith. 


30         ORIGIN  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON 

be  with  you;"  Josh.  7:12,  DS^f'  nVnb  -fCiX  i^b  ,  Yahweh  will 
sever  this  relationship,  because  the  Israelites  have  become  D^nb , 
and  therefore  "He  will  be"  can  no  longer  be  Grod  with  them. 
From  these  passages  we  learn  that  the  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the 
preposition  which  expresses  the  relation  of  God  to  his  people. 
This  leads  me  to  the  conclusion  that  the  writers  must  have  con- 
sidered WD'Z^  TrnUi  as  being  synonymous  with  Ij)^"  mn^ .  The 
former  expression  is  that  which  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  the 
deity,  while  the  latter  is  used  by  man. 

That  this  was  the  original  meaning  is  also  confirmed  by  three 
passages,  Gen.  28:13-16  (J),  vs.  20  (E),  vs.  21&  (RJE).  In 
vs.  13  Yahweh  reveals  himself  to  Jacob  in  the  words  n^TT  ^J5<  ; 
then  in  vs.  15  he  says,  y2^  ^i3« ,  which  is  the  assurance.  In  vs. 
20  Jacob  says,  ^i:^:?  U^tlbi^  n1^•'"D^5 ,  and  continuing  his  vow  in 
vs.  21  he  says,  D"^b^5b  ^b  Hln^  H^HI  =  "then  'He  will  be'  shall 
be  to  me  for  a  god."  All  these  sources  are  in  harmony  with 
what  has  been  said  above. 

Skipwith  thinks  he  finds  traces  of  the  original  usage  of  2pT 
(bi^)  and  bjS^ir"'  as  invocations  still  lingering  in  the  times  of 
the  Great  Unknown,  in  Isa.  44:: 5  ;  48:1,  2.  It  is  true,  he  argues 
from  the  traditional  pointing,  but  this  is  not  permissible.  Isa. 
44:5  as  it  stands  offers  much  difficulty,  as  it  would  make  Jacob  a 
god,  but  even  a  superficial  study  of  Deutero-Isaiah  would  show 
the  monstrosity  of  such  a  conception.  We  ought,  therefore,  to 
read  5^^i5';  =  "he  calls  himself,"  instead  of  S^'^p"] ,  and  for  HBp^ 
we  ought  to  read  PuaP'  HSj";  .  Compare  jS'  II,  "go  by  a  sur- 
name." Then  the  parts  in  question  would  read,  "and  this  one 
calls  himself  by  the  name  of  Jacob,  ....  and  receives  the 
surname  Israel."  The  verse  has  reference  to  strangers,  who  will 
attach  to  themselves  the  names  of  honor,  "sons  of  Jacob," 
"  Israelites."  ^^  This  necessary  emendation  excludes  all  reference 
to  any  such  conception  as  that  of  which  Skipwith  seems  to  find 
traces  in  this  verse  and  48:1,  2,  which  verses  he  supports  with 
44:5.  He,  however,  well  remarks  that  we  find  in  the  name 
"Immanuel"  (Isa.  7:14)  an  exact  equivalent  of  the  name  of  the 
Deity  of  Israel. 

This  interpretation  of  the  tetragrammaton  seems  to  me  to  be 
more  satisfactory  than  any  other.  Considering  the  circumstances 
under  which  this  name,  according  to  E,  was  revealed  to  Moses, 

91  So  also  Oort,  Ryssel,  Gratz,  Duhm,  et  al. 

92  Cf.  commentaries  of  Dillmann-Kittel,  Duhm. 


ORIGIN  AND  INTERPEETATION  OF  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON         31 

and  by  Moses  again  to  the  people,  was  it  more  likely  that  Moses, 
standing  before  the  people,  would  reveal  to  them  a  deity  with 
such  an  abstract  name  as  "the  One  who  is,"  "the  Creator,"  "the 
Living  One,"  or,  knowing  the  needs  of  his  people,  a  deity  whose 
very  name  would  be  a  comfort  to  a  downtrodden  and  outraged 
people,  as  "I  will  be  God  with  you,"  or  in  the  mouth  of  Moses, 
"He  will  be  God  with  us"?  Doubtless  the  latter.  Would  any 
other  name  have  produced  such  marvelous  results,  e.  g.,  the 
exodus  itself,  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  for  both  of  which  ni»T', 
understood  as  explained  above,  might  fairly  be  said  to  furnish 
the  motto  ?  Ewald'''^  comes  nearest  to  this  interpretation  in 
explaining  the  tetragrammaton  as  "I  shall  be  it,  I,  who  I  shall 
be,  namely,  thine  and  your  assistance,  helper." 

The  full  name  of  the  Deity  was  primarily  1j?jy  bi^  TV]TT  = 
"He  will  be  God  with  us."  Under  his  direction  and  protection 
the  exodus  was  decided,  and  took  place  at  his  command,  as  also 
the  conquest  of  Canaan.  This  new  deity,  or  old  deity  with  a  new 
name,  showed  himself  to  the  Hebrews  first  of  all  as  a  god  of  war- 
fare (Exod.,  chap.  15;  Judg.,  chap.  5;  cf.  also  Exod.  17:16  as 
emended).  It  is  therefore  quite  natural  that  this  name  should 
be  used  by  the  people  as  their  war-cry.  That  it  was  used  as  such 
is  plainly  shown  by  Judg.  7:20,  ]VTjh^  tl^frb  nnn  l^^p^T  ;  mn 
is  here  doubtless  a  gloss  due  to  the  interpolation  in  vs.  14.^*  In 
the  parallel  passage  vs.  18  it  is  missing.  It  is  found,  however, 
in  vs.  14,  due  to  a  later  and  erroneous  interpretation.  The  inter- 
polator conceived  of  bX^TT''  "Oi^i^  (vs.  14)  as  having  reference  to 
an  individual,  while  it  is,  in  fact,  collective;  cf.  Judg.  7:23; 
8:22;  9:55;  20:20,  etc.;  with  the  name  of  Gideon  falls  also  D^n . 
This  war-cry  in  vs.  20  is  unusually  long,  but  was  necessitated  by 
circumstances,  while  ordinarily  the  shortest  possible  abbreviation 
of  the  divine  name  was  used,  and  that  was  the  tetragrammaton 
niH"' .  This  abbreviation  became  soon  so  familiar  to  the  Hebrews, 
on  account  of  their  constant  warfare,  that  its  original  significance 
became  entirely  lost,  and  it  was  soon  looked  upon  as  the  proper 
name  of  the  God  of  Israel. 

As  I  hope  to  have  shown,  the  instances  are  numerous  which 
almost  imperatively  demand  a  different  interpretation  of  TiyTT 
than  that  which  generally  has  been  given  to  it.  I  therefore 
venture  to  offer  this  one. 

93  Lehre,  II,  p.  336.  9*  Budde,  Richter  und  Samuel;  Moore,  Judges. 


VITA. 

I  was  born  August  1,  1873,  in  Crefeld,  Germany.  When  I 
sailed  for  America  in  1890  I  was  in  the  Unter-Prima  of  the  Real- 
schule  at  Crefeld.  In  the  spring  of  1894  I  entered  the  Bloom- 
field  Theological  Seminary.  There,  and  with  a  competent  private 
teacher,  I  completed  the  study  of  the  Grreek  and  Latin  classics, 
as  demanded  in  the  German  Gymnasium.  In  the  fall  of  1895 
I  entered  the  New  Brunswick  Theological  Seminary.  In  1898 
I  was  graduated  and  received  from  Rutgers  College  the  degree 
of  B.D.  The  two  years'  special  work  which  led  to  this  degree 
was  done  under  Professor  Lansing,  the  two  courses  being  Arabic 
and  Old  Testament  studies.  During  my  theological  course  I 
studied  also  Semitic  languages  with  Professors  Prince  and 
Osborn,  of  New  York  University.  In  the  year  1898  I  received 
the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  from  the  New  York  University. 
In  1898-99  I  took  a  post-graduate  course  in  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  in  the  Semitic  department,  with  Professors  Francis 
Brown,  Briggs,  and  Fagnani.  I  received  the  degree  of  Doctor 
of  Philosophy  from  New  York  University,  1899. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  ot  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  tlie 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


JUN  1 3  2000 


12,000(11/95) 


UNIVKRSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


./•v^ 


'■  ■■'  "  :  'l:f^ 


'■■•■•  V  •>':/;. 'ir-.*; 


